Pushkov suggest limitation to just three airliners. I think my idea was better though were they have to get a contract with a separate (possibly private or state owned) to maintain and inspect carriers planes.

sepheronx wrote:Interior Ministry announced another tender for the purchase of the Tu-154, reducing the price РИА Новости http://ria.ru/economy/20151025/1307869731.html#ixzz3pdelsSPH

This comes as a surprise. New life fore Tu-154 brand?

No. It's a tender to overhaul an existing Tu-154 no older than 24 years and having an operational life of no less than 48,000flying hours and 18,000 flights. They slashed the initial offer from 1.6 billion rubles to 200 million rubles.

A group of Russian companies have joined forces on a project to convert six Tupolev Tu-204 narrow-body jets to VIP transports. The agreement was announced at the JetExpo show in Moscow this week. According to Vitaly Romanyuk, president of Russia’s Association of Aviation Interior Companies AKA) and general director of Vemina-Aviaprestige, all six aircraft are to be completed over a two-year period, with the first ready for service in 2016.

The role of UIianovsk-based Leasing Avia, with help of financial institutions from St. Petersburg, is to provide funds for components such as Aviadvigatel/Perm Motors PS-90A turbofans, Stupino TA12-60 APUs and avionics blocks from KRET. Interiors will be provided by a group of local completions specialists Vemina-Aviaprestige, Kvand, AKKO, AeroStyle and other association members.

Romanyuk said the six Tu-204s are follow-ons to a pair of similarly equipped aircraft ordered by the Russian government for Special Air Detachment (Russian acronym SLO), a Russian governmental fleet that serves President Putin and his ministers. “These two airframes are very close to completion. I am sure the first will be delivered later this year and the second in early 2016,” Romanyuk told AIN. “We have already assembled two complete sets of interiors and shipped them to Aviastar-SP. The plant is completing the installation work before flight tests and customer delivery.”

The Tu-204-300 on display at JetExpo’2015 (registration RA-64057) “provides a good example of what Russian completions specialists can offer the business aviation community,” Romanyuk said. The middle of the aircraft consists of a conference room and bedroom suite, including a bathroom with a shower. The forward fuselage section is equipped with 12 to 16 business class seats, while the rear represents a typical airline economy class section with 26 rows of six-abreast seating. “This airplane has been in active service for five years now, demonstrating high reliability and passenger comfort. Clearly, the customer benefits from the best technologies available from local manufacturers and service providers,” Romanyuk said.

Basing on experience gained during design, completion and after-sales support of RA-64057 and other Tu-204/214s in SLO fleet, the local companies have refined their technologies and design solutions. “We have developed a number of interior options for existing and potential Tu-204 buyers,” said Romanyuk.

With a maximum gross weight of 105 metric tons, the Tu-204-300 has fuel capacity for a range of 9,500 km (5,130 nm) with 25 passengers on board. The airframe has a life limit of 45,000 flying hours and 25,000 flight cycles. “This aircraft type has proved ideal for fulfilling a wide range of governmental and corporate missions, and it is also a good platform for special-mission aircraft. Most of such aircraft in service can fly up to 10,000 km [5,400 nm] nonstop, and come with a [reserve] crew rest area.”

“The technologies are developing further,” he added, “and today we are offering a number of improvements including high-g-tolerant seats in first and business class, as well as lighter and more convenient folding tables.” Romanyuk also praised the Vemina fashion house, which is a sister company to Vemina-Aviaprestige. “We offer these design features, but the governmental customers tend not to request them, preferring instead a classic style for their aircraft cabins. But these solutions can find clients in the business community.”

Most of interior design and completion work is performed by Russian companies. In order to cut expenses and develop in-house expertise, he said, “we have reduced import intake to an absolute minimum. Foreign supply is confined to materials, natural leather, rare kinds of wood/timber, coatings, glues and other chemicals.”

The renewed strategy of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC, Chalet C4, Stand 550) is for civil aviation to represent 50 percent of the corporation’s income. The 100-seat Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ100), an example of which is parked on the static line here in Dubai, remains a core program, soon to be supplemented by the MC-21 next-generation narrowbody.The MC-21’s maiden flight is planned for 2016 and certification for 2018. The Soviet-era Ilyushin Il-96 widebody and Tupolev Tu-204/214 narrowbody will remain in production until 2023-25, however, with a planned annual output of two-to-three airframes of each type.

In October, UAC’s executive board approved the renewed business plan for the Superjet, calling for 595 SSJ100 sales through 2031 compared with 800, previously. Of the aforementioned 595, 82 would be the Basic model (SSJ100-95B), 331 Long Range (SSJ100-95LR) and 140 would be an enlarged-seating-capacity version (for 110-125 passengers). The remaining 42 are the business jet version.

The document was prepared on an order from President Putin, which he issued in March, when allocating a rescue package of ruble 100 billion for the ailing manufacturer Sukhoi Civil Aircraft (SCAC). The money went into SCAC’s base capital, and reduced SCAC’s debts from ruble 109 billion ($1.7 billion) in early 2015 to ruble 6.9 billion ($0.11 billion) now.The renewed business plan is “more realistic,” according to the corporation’s president Yuri Slyusar. This year, “from 17 to 20 aircraft” will be produced, compared with 36 in 2014. The reduction is caused by a large number of “white tails” today, out of nearly 100 Superjets assembled, fewer than 60 are placed with airlines, the largest being Aeroflot (30), Interjet (16) and Red Wings (four).

This problem was eased somewhat at MAKS’2015, when UAC and government-controlled GTLK lessor signed the largest Superjet contract so far, for 32 firm orders and 28 options. The Russian government and the nation’s largest banks will support this deal financially, with GTLK placing these aircraft with a handful of local carriers on very attractive terms.

Another cause for the temporary slow-down is the on-going effort to reduce manufacturing costs. Slyusar explained: “We want to somewhat simplify the baseline version to offer to those customers who do not [want a] complex set of onboard systems.”This is targeted as a $2.6 million cost reduction per airframe, partly through wider use of Russian-made components, and partly from more automation so as to reduce the number of man-hours.A UAC study found that, to make ends meet, the Superjet’s monthly rental should be $185,000. This led to a target fly-off price of $27-28 million per airframe (compared to $35 million now).UAC plans to produce 25 Superjets in 2016 and 34 in 2017. Later, the production output will stabilize at 35-40 annually. Slyusar believes UAC is able to balance Superjet sales and manufacturing rates in the next three years, enabling SCAC to start generating operational profit starting in 2017.

Among various projects developed to attract new customers, there is a wet lease program developed by Ilyushin Finance Co. (IFC). Potential customers are given an aircraft on wet lease for six months. This term allows the airline to make sure that the Russian airplane demonstrates its advertised performance.

IFC has placed orders for 28 Superjets and 50 MC-21s and is widely viewed as the preferred lessor to structure deals with Aeroflot for additional Superjets to the Russian flag carrier.

At the Paris Airshow in June, IFC general manager Alexander Roubtsov told journalists that he’d had meetings with five foreign airlines. They were offered Superjets on wet lease for six months, complete with crews and technical assistance from Red Wings. “Few would agree to buy a new type. Our offer enables potential buyers to avoid some risks. The airline, which has tested the type on its routes, is better positioned to make a weighted decision whether to buy some.”

At MAKS’2015 in August, IFC, Red Wings and Sky Angkor Airlines signed an agreement. The Cambodian carrier agreed to take one Superjet on wet lease. After assessment of this aircraft in operation, the airline will decide whether the type meets its requirements.

If this trial ends up with a positive conclusion, Sky Angkor will take a couple of newly built airplanes through an operating lease from IFC. A decision is expected by year-end. If it is in favor of the Superjet, two aircraft will be delivered in 2016. Similar schemes have been discussed with a number of Asian airlines, including those from Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand.

Red Wings is soon to come under control of IFC as a result of the ongoing changes in its shareholding structure. Today, the airline operates four SSJ100-95Bs on operating lease terms. A fifth airframe will join the fleet late this year. In October 2015, the UAC executive board made the decision to hand a 74 percent stake in the airline over to the lessor. When complete, this move will bring Red Wings and IFC even closer.

Do you happen to know what are the demands (possible orders) for MS-21? It isn't bad per se to have different companies all competing in Russia for this, but it seems that civil airline manufacturers in Russia are barely surviving with Sukhoi civil needing a bailout (sounds like Bombardier). Wouldn't it just make more sense to merge development between the plants for both SSJ-100 and MS-21? Having two individual companies seems just strange, especially when their planes are not much different in class.

Only 500+ planes by 2031 isn't really that impressive. Actually on the contrary it is quite sad. Bombardier CRJ series sold from 1999 to now over 700 aircraft and those aircrafts are more expensive and less capable than the SSJ-100.

Edit: Disregard about comment on SSJ-100 and MS-21 being similar. MS-21 seems to have a much larger seating capacity and longer ranges.

Last edited by sepheronx on Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

Austin wrote:MS-21 as of today has 175 firm orders mostly from Russian Aviation and Russian Government , Also 1 -2 export customer. THis is for MS-21-300 variant.

Thanks. Hopefully they will end up with far more orders. I just do not see the point having two separate companies making civil airliners. Why not just merge Irkutsk/Yakovlev with Sukhoi civil and have just 1 firm dealing with civil airline development? Already competition is quite strong in these aircrafts (Chinas Comac, Brazils Embraer, Canada's Bombardier, etc).

sepheronx wrote:Do you happen to know what are the demands (possible orders) for MS-21? It isn't bad per se to have different companies all competing in Russia for this, but it seems that civil airline manufacturers in Russia are barely surviving with Sukhoi civil needing a bailout (sounds like Bombardier). Wouldn't it just make more sense to merge development between the plants for both SSJ-100 and MS-21? Having two individual companies seems just strange, especially when their planes are not much different in class.

Only 500+ planes by 2031 isn't really that impressive. Actually on the contrary it is quite sad. Bombardier CRJ series sold from 1999 to now over 700 aircraft and those aircrafts are more expensive and less capable than the SSJ-100.

Edit: Disregard about comment on SSJ-100 and MS-21 being similar. MS-21 seems to have a much larger seating capacity and longer ranges.

Who cares how much are sold in total. If nobody wants "inferior" Russian equipment they can go and suck Uncle Sam's and EU's cock. The onlything that matters for Russia is that initial development costs for various aircraft are recovered. This has already happened for the SSJ100 andwill happen for the MC-21 as well. If UAC can produce around three IL-86 and TU-204 airframes per year then it can run small production lines. Thewhole point of UAC is to have a corporation with a critical revenue mass assembled from diverse activities that it can afford low volume aircraft production. UAC does not need huge volume production lines to have balanced books. It does not need any subsidies but naturally will demand them like all corporate welfare queens.

Austin wrote:MS-21 as of today has 175 firm orders mostly from Russian Aviation and Russian Government , Also 1 -2 export customer. THis is for MS-21-300 variant.

Thanks. Hopefully they will end up with far more orders. I just do not see the point having two separate companies making civil airliners. Why not just merge Irkutsk/Yakovlev with Sukhoi civil and have just 1 firm dealing with civil airline development? Already competition is quite strong in these aircrafts (Chinas Comac, Brazils Embraer, Canada's Bombardier, etc).

They are all part of UAC already just like Sukhoi. There is no need to throw everything into the blender to have a viable corporation thatcan make revenues from various activities. This is just like national airlines servicing routes which "lose" money. The only thing that mattersis that the total budget is balanced + some profit. Idiots who think that every activity that a company engages in has to be profitable arenot worth the time of day. In their little brain dead theory world all activity would spiral to zero along with the GDP as there would be amassive feedback loop associated with the recursive truncation of unprofitable activity.

sepheronx wrote:Do you happen to know what are the demands (possible orders) for MS-21? It isn't bad per se to have different companies all competing in Russia for this, but it seems that civil airline manufacturers in Russia are barely surviving with Sukhoi civil needing a bailout (sounds like Bombardier). Wouldn't it just make more sense to merge development between the plants for both SSJ-100 and MS-21? Having two individual companies seems just strange, especially when their planes are not much different in class.

Only 500+ planes by 2031 isn't really that impressive. Actually on the contrary it is quite sad. Bombardier CRJ series sold from 1999 to now over 700 aircraft and those aircrafts are more expensive and less capable than the SSJ-100.

Edit: Disregard about comment on SSJ-100 and MS-21 being similar. MS-21 seems to have a much larger seating capacity and longer ranges.

Who cares how much are sold in total. If nobody wants "inferior" Russian equipment they can go and suck Uncle Sam's and EU's cock. The onlything that matters for Russia is that initial development costs for various aircraft are recovered. This has already happened for the SSJ100 andwill happen for the MC-21 as well. If UAC can produce around three IL-86 and TU-204 airframes per year then it can run small production lines. Thewhole point of UAC is to have a corporation with a critical revenue mass assembled from diverse activities that it can afford low volume aircraft production. UAC does not need huge volume production lines to have balanced books. It does not need any subsidies but naturally will demand them like all corporate welfare queens.

Although, according to the comments from what I read here is that they wont profit from it till 2017/18 at least. Or I may have gotten something wrong here. I guess once all 175 orders are completed then it will be past the development costs and yeah, profit region.

kvs wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Austin wrote:MS-21 as of today has 175 firm orders mostly from Russian Aviation and Russian Government , Also 1 -2 export customer. THis is for MS-21-300 variant.

Thanks. Hopefully they will end up with far more orders. I just do not see the point having two separate companies making civil airliners. Why not just merge Irkutsk/Yakovlev with Sukhoi civil and have just 1 firm dealing with civil airline development? Already competition is quite strong in these aircrafts (Chinas Comac, Brazils Embraer, Canada's Bombardier, etc).

They are all part of UAC already just like Sukhoi. There is no need to throw everything into the blender to have a viable corporation thatcan make revenues from various activities. This is just like national airlines servicing routes which "lose" money. The only thing that mattersis that the total budget is balanced + some profit. Idiots who think that every activity that a company engages in has to be profitable arenot worth the time of day. In their little brain dead theory world all activity would spiral to zero along with the GDP as there would be amassive feedback loop associated with the recursive truncation of unprofitable activity.

Rightly so, but I am just stating on a profit per sale motive. Have they recovered from the initial cost of investment? Kinda sucks that SCAC needed to be bailed out like Bombardier had to. I am quite excited for MS-21 like Austin pointed out and I am hoping that there will not be any bailing out needed for Irkutsk and it is pure profit.

The main important thing is your buying civilian airliners from Russian companies and the money pays Russian workers/engineers/technicians and stays/circulates within Russian borders, instead of buying them from aerospace conglomerates in NATO states that also have defense division's that lobby's Western govt's. with Russophobic, Appeal-to-Fear fallacy porn!

magnumcromagnon wrote:The main important thing is your buying civilian airliners from Russian companies and the money pays Russian workers/engineers/technicians and stays/circulates within Russian borders, instead of buying them from aerospace conglomerates in NATO states that also have defense division's that lobby's Western govt's. with Russophobic, Appeal-to-Fear fallacy porn!

I completely agree, but if the company isn't profiting, then it becomes a problem in the long run. I would wager that if they are already making their money back from the investments in terms of sales and it only makes it easier to do so with the bailout, then I say not bad. If they get up to 500 aircrafts sold, guaranteed they will be profiting long before that.

If we do the basic numbers from what is gathered from Wiki and its sources, the program cost was $1.5B. If we know what the total firm orders are for SSJ-100 and which models, it is easier to determine. But, per aircraft price does not indicate that is the total Russian industry gets, as you need to minus the amount of cost per aircraft and then we can determine the profit it is per aircraft - the cost of the program. If the program is already paid off, then the profit per aircraft goes to the bank.

Austin wrote:IL-96 production would not be revived they are building 15 Odd for military till 2025

It wont be competitive either with new engine , better to focus on Wide Body with China

But why not? Il-96 with modern engines and avionics had a range of roughly 12,000 KM at max load and it has quite the number of seating. It outdoes the A-330 aircraft which sold very well.

With modern engines of higher efficiency and newer avionics, the Il-96 could very well be an awesome aircraft. And as it was mentioned, Aeroflot did actually curb the further development of Il-96 with its order of 737 at the time.

The Il-96M is a stretched variant of the Il-96-300. It features a 10 m (30 ft) fuselage stretch, is 15 tonnes (33,000 lb) heavier, is fitted with Western-style avionics, and is powered by four Pratt & Whitney PW2337 engines with a thrust rating of 165 kN (37,000 lbf). Range with 312 passengers in a three-class configuration or 92 tonne (203,000 lb) payload is about 10,400 km (5,600 nmi). This turned it into a true—but vastly more capable—Il-86 successor. The Il-96M/T is broadly comparable with the Airbus A330-300 and McDonnell Douglas MD-11CF, but is much cheaper. Development on the M/T variant stalled when the US Export-Import Bank suspended talks on financing the engines and avionics, following pressure from Boeing. The dispute was later settled following an Aeroflot order for ten Boeing 737-400s—placed in April 1997 in a deal worth US$440 million— that were granted a tax exemption by the Russian government; nevertheless, the financing was blocked again when four Boeing 767-300ERs also ordered by Aeroflot were not included in the accorded exemption. The deal was never realised.

But why not? Il-96 with modern engines and avionics had a range of roughly 12,000 KM at max load and it has quite the number of seating. It outdoes the A-330 aircraft which sold very well.

With modern engines of higher efficiency and newer avionics, the Il-96 could very well be an awesome aircraft. And as it was mentioned, Aeroflot did actually curb the further development of Il-96 with its order of 737 at the time.

The Il-96M is a stretched variant of the Il-96-300. It features a 10 m (30 ft) fuselage stretch, is 15 tonnes (33,000 lb) heavier, is fitted with Western-style avionics, and is powered by four Pratt & Whitney PW2337 engines with a thrust rating of 165 kN (37,000 lbf). Range with 312 passengers in a three-class configuration or 92 tonne (203,000 lb) payload is about 10,400 km (5,600 nmi). This turned it into a true—but vastly more capable—Il-86 successor. The Il-96M/T is broadly comparable with the Airbus A330-300 and McDonnell Douglas MD-11CF, but is much cheaper. Development on the M/T variant stalled when the US Export-Import Bank suspended talks on financing the engines and avionics, following pressure from Boeing. The dispute was later settled following an Aeroflot order for ten Boeing 737-400s—placed in April 1997 in a deal worth US$440 million— that were granted a tax exemption by the Russian government; nevertheless, the financing was blocked again when four Boeing 767-300ERs also ordered by Aeroflot were not included in the accorded exemption. The deal was never realised.

I remember that blackmail/clear policy to sabotage. It should be a lesson that should not be forgotten.There are a lot of other examples.

Reading the various perfomance specs...the Il-96 with modern engines was most certainly competitive with it's Boeing and Airbus counterparts. I'm speaking particularly of the Il-96M and Il-96 400.Whether that is still the case 15 years and more on is debateable, but for the military, the airframe has some very particular advantages in some roles. On that note...has the tanker version of the Il-96 flown yet? If so, are there any pictures? If not, when is the likely first flight?

Austin wrote:IL-96 production would not be revived they are building 15 Odd for military till 2025

It wont be competitive either with new engine , better to focus on Wide Body with China

But why not? Il-96 with modern engines and avionics had a range of roughly 12,000 KM at max load and it has quite the number of seating. It outdoes the A-330 aircraft which sold very well.

With modern engines of higher efficiency and newer avionics, the Il-96 could very well be an awesome aircraft. And as it was mentioned, Aeroflot did actually curb the further development of Il-96 with its order of 737 at the time.

The Il-96M is a stretched variant of the Il-96-300. It features a 10 m (30 ft) fuselage stretch, is 15 tonnes (33,000 lb) heavier, is fitted with Western-style avionics, and is powered by four Pratt & Whitney PW2337 engines with a thrust rating of 165 kN (37,000 lbf). Range with 312 passengers in a three-class configuration or 92 tonne (203,000 lb) payload is about 10,400 km (5,600 nmi). This turned it into a true—but vastly more capable—Il-86 successor. The Il-96M/T is broadly comparable with the Airbus A330-300 and McDonnell Douglas MD-11CF, but is much cheaper. Development on the M/T variant stalled when the US Export-Import Bank suspended talks on financing the engines and avionics, following pressure from Boeing. The dispute was later settled following an Aeroflot order for ten Boeing 737-400s—placed in April 1997 in a deal worth US$440 million— that were granted a tax exemption by the Russian government; nevertheless, the financing was blocked again when four Boeing 767-300ERs also ordered by Aeroflot were not included in the accorded exemption. The deal was never realised.

Nothing like facts to burst a bubble of BS. Aeroflot executives should receive a swift kick to the 'nads for favouring NATO aircraft. NATOhate propaganda will always paint Russian equipment as utter crap and a risk so Russia will have to wait forever for its aircraft industry todevelop and for companies such as Aeroflot to naturally buy Russian made aircraft. (BTW, the purpose of the NATO hate propaganda israther clear, it is to suppress a powerhouse competitor that will mop the floor with it.)